Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo... barf — Page 2

It is not that he followed it super closely, but to such an extend that it feels really cheap. Romeo and Juliet has been done and redone so many times and in so many ways, what was once original and new about that story has long since disappeared.

How would I have fixed the Anakin/Padme relationship? They should still start off madly, incoherently in love, but after that I'd go in a different direction than Lucas. I would've set up Padme as an alternative to Anakin's life in the Jedi Order, and not merely an inconvenient, closeted adjunct. She would have personified Anakin's ability to leave the Jedi and adopt a normal life, and his rejection of this course of action would have  highlighted his bellicose nature and also served as an implicit rejection of her. Padme would be all to aware of this, but for a while she'd stand by her man, hoping that he'd change.

Which, of course, he did--but not the way she'd hoped.

Anyhow, this sets up a possible choice for Anakin on which drama hinges, at least for the three or four people who haven't seen ESB yet. Will he ride off into the sunset with the girl, or leave her moping at home while he chases glory and military success? As the trilogy progresses--oh, yeah, let's start with the two of them as adults so we can kick the relationship off earlier--as the trilogy progresses, let's have Padme slowly turn against the Jedi and the state, blaming them (perhaps unjustly) for occupying to much of her husband's time, putting him into dangerous situations, making him obsessed with the Clone Wars. Anakin, meanwhile, begins to abandon his responsibilities towards his wife and sees himself not as a husband-father figure, but as a player on the galactic scale. He thinks he's fulfilling his duties to his government and his order, but in fact he is becoming "more machine than man," reacting to the demands of the authorities rather than those of his heart. And, of course, there are the ranks and the titles, the decorations and the legions of clonetroopers under his command. When Padme tells him that he's pregnant, he doesn't really care--he assures her she'll get the best midwife droids on Coruscant, then returns to his military work.

This slight, perhaps moreso than the "turn" in Palpatine's office, signals the end of "Ani" and the birth of Darth Vader, flunky of the state. Padme senses this, and takes measures to separate herself and her children from Anakin. He finds out, and just lets her go ... sure, they had fun together, but what is the fate of one woman with child measured against his great responsibilities to defend the Republic and serve his mentor, Chancellor Palpatine? Oh, it's an Empire now, and Palpatine is Emperor? No matter. There are still enemies to kill, no time to reminisce about a relationship that ended long ago.

In this scenario, I have abandoned most of the melodramatic plot threads that built up both around the real story and various fan interpretations. Vader does not accidentally kill his wife, they are not passionately in love until the end, Vader's refusal to let his wife go as per a murky prophetic dream does not drive him into the Sith (yecch). He simply accrues more and more power, becomes more important on a galactic scale, and forgets about her. I like this because it's much more gradual, and parallels my idea of how the fall should've been.

Umm, I think I failed to address the issues of chemistry, dialogue, and the general blecchyness of the PT relationship. Sorry. Let's just assume all those got fixed in this scenario.

Quite true. A good actor can work wonders on poor dialogue. Good dialogue can sometimes (though very rarely) work despite the bad actor.

With Anakin in the PT, we have the worst of both worlds: terrible actor + piss-poor dialogue = remarkably unimpressive movie.

Hayden's acting was horrendous in Episode II and III as well as Jumper.

Then there is that bad movie he is in with Jessica alba running and screaming saying "their trying to kill me" and  all bad performances.

Never seen Life as a house but in every other Movie i have seen him in he is awful.  They chose him for star wars because of the intensity of his eyes, and his brooding which they Called Being Like James Dean.

Brooding in every movie hardly translates to acting.  To be fair to Hayden though Lucas had to be the worst Director ever for actors, he cannot direct actors as he is not a character director.

Faster.  More Intense is all he does.

Some actors can compensate for awful dialogue and little or no direction Like Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark hamill also can have a sense of humor about it.  Generally actors are put off by quiet directors who don't talk to them.  Don't work with them to get a performance and stick them in front of a blue or green screen to act against cgi that with be put in later. 

Shoot the actors seperately because a composite performance can be put together later.  Have an actor just basically stand there and look dumb because the cgi backdrop you put in Later will distract the audience from the fact there is no acting or story.

Lucas should only do special effects, have someone else direct the actors and write the story. 

He should direct the the cutscenes  for videogame companies he would excel at that.  Well as long as he leaves Jar Jar out,lol.

He is for pushing the technology of moviemaking forward at the same time he is the King of Wooden Dialogue and Twerp cinema.

sunday256 said:

 

Lastly, I disagree about Hayden's acting ability. He was hired primarily for his role in "Life As A House" which I thought he did quite well in.

Before you burn him at the stake at leat check that film out if you haven't and then come back and say he's a terrible actor. And for that matter, we all know Natalie Portman is a better actress than what people say she was in Star Wars. The Professional comes to mind.

Hayden is an average actor at best in Hollywood.  He is the reason why there are so many bad movies these days, because he's gotten this far because of his looks.   As Seinfeld said, "He is a Mimbo!"

Hayden is terrible in Episode II, and terrible in Episode III.  Now I put aside the cheesy stuff because no actor can say that and look good, but what I do is look at his dramatic scenes and they are awful.

-The part where he is holding Shmi when she is dying is cringeworthy, as that scene is terrible.  "Stay with me mom..."  Ouch!

-The part where he confesses to Padme is laughable, "And the women, the children...."  Yikes!  He actually had some good lines in that, and because he is a sub-par actor, couldn't pull it off.

-When he is at Shmi's grave is another terrible scene. 

-The whole turn scene in Episode III is awful, as he just does these stupid facial moves as he gives in to Palpatine.  "I-I-I will dooo anything....you ask."  How about quitting so Lucas can hire a new actor!

-The ObiWan/Anakin meeting on Mustafar, when he says, "You will not take her from me!!!"  Ughh!!!  That whole scene could have been great...could have....

Hayden is OK in Life as a house, and he is actually pretty good in Shattered Glass, but that still doesn't make him a great actor.   In fairness to Hayden, there aren't that many great actors out there in Hollywood, and this role demanded a great actor because the part is tragic, and if the actor can't pull the drama off, it comes off as cheesy and laughable.

As for Portman, she is SO overrated too.  Yeah, she was good in the Professional, but she was 13 years old, as her latter works have been OK.  I am not saying she is bad, but she isn't some great actor, cause I don't see any range on her from role to role.  Although she wasn't bad as a stripper in Closer:)

I know it sounds like I am coming down hard on Hayden/Natalie, but young actors usually don't pull off dramatic roles well in Hollywood.  They are both great looking people who made it big time mostly because of their looks.  20-30 years ago, Hollywood wasn't dominated by just 'good' looking people like Brad Pitts and George Clooney's dominate it now.  In the 70's you had actors like Gene Hackman, Robert DeNiro,  Dustin Hoffman, and Meryl Streep dominating Hollywood, and I wouldn't say any of them have looks like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt.

@ Sunday - actually Hayden was cast in and made Life as a House after he was cast in and shot principal photography on Episode 2. It's just that because of the usual long post production time on a movie like AOTC that Life as a House was filmed and released before it. 

@ Chewy - Portman is a fine actress. Yes she is terrible in the prequels. But so is Ewan McGregor at times, is he an overrated actor? Probably not. She has to be given a pass on Ep 1 since she was 16 freakin' years old and the other 2 movies she just looked bored as hell. I think the behind the secens footage of the pick up shooting for Ep 2 when she had to film the factory sequence is very telling.

If you don't see range in her from role to role you probably haven't seen enough of her work. She isn't Meryl Streep but she's one of the better actresses amongst her peers.

I also have to protest your point on hollywood now being dominated by only good looking actors. It's was the same back then as it is now.

Do you actually think George Clooney and Brad Pitt are bad actors? Cause if you do your opinion won't hold much water with me. Good looks does not equal no talent. What about Robert Redford or Cary Grant or Warren Beatty to use older hollywood examples.

Present day I can list for example hollywood actors such as Phillip Seymor Hoffman and Edward Norton next to the likes of Deniro, Pacino and Hackman without a hesitating. Then there is an actor like Chrisitan Bale who has both leading man good looks and immense acting talent.

I could go on and on about your Kevin Spacey's and your pretty boys turned good like Leonardo DiCaprio (who was always a good actor mind you) but I better stop some where, but there is definately no shotage of talent in hollywood. You dominate hollywood if you're a good. 

This is all subjective of course, which is why I didn't say you are wrong I just disagree completely.

see you auntie,

I agree that good lucks has been around in TV/Movies since their inception.

My point is that the blockbusters today are dominated by 'mimbo's', and guys like Phillip Seymour Hoffman get all the smaller, artsy roles, that usually don't find that audience.  Guys like Pacino got every great hit in the 70's, so did Deniro.  Hackman did The French Connection, and Brando & Hackman both did Superman. 

I look at an actress like Laura Linney, ten times better actress then Julia Roberts, who would get cast in a blockbuster?

I always contest if they made Jaws today, George Clooney would be the Roy Scheider character, as Scheider wouldn't have the looks today to sell the summer blockbuster crowd.

As for Portman, I don't think she is a bad actress, as I don't even think it is fair to judge anything she did in the PT in that respect.  But I have seen most of her movies, and she really doesn't do anything with great range that really wows you. 

To me, what makes a great actor is someone who is able to stretch yourself from your usual role.  DeNiro can play a psycho in Taxidriver, a young Vito Corleone in Godfather II, Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull, and even be funny as hell in Midnight Run.

Guys like Harrison and Clint Eastwood knew they weren't great actors and never really tried to stretch themselves, as they knew their limits.  Ford stuck with Jack Ryan, Dr. Kimble, and Indy, and branched out to roles in Witness, as he was very good in that.  Eastwood was the same way, as always played the same tough guy Dirty Harry character, and both never won an oscar.

Most actors today pretty much play the same role, and really can't expand on anything else.  So we agree that looks have always been important in Hollywood, I just think that they are more important then ever, and that is why you frickin George Clooney winning an Oscar 2 years ago?  Come on, that was laughable.  That means he won as many oscars as Paul Newman did:)

edit: I will say that 3 great actors of this generation that do get cast in Blockbusters are Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington, so I don't want to come off as someone who hates all movies today:)

edit: urgh sorry for the wall of text. I'll understand if you don't read it. It looks horrible and I probably wouldn't read it all if someone else wrote it.

Well I see you and I will agree on some things in regards to Hollywood.

Laura Linney is a phenomenal actress, one of the best of her generation. Would I cast her in a blockbuster - yes. Would Hollywood - yes. She's in some pretty mainstream movies. Why she's not in more is probably up to her. She does a lot of indie movies because they seem to be the good female roles. Basically between her and Streep they get the pick of the lot. She doesn't seem to want the notoriety so why do a big movie when you can do a good movie.

It's not always Hollywood that doesn't want the actor it's the actor that doesn't want Hollywood. I's dare say there's a lot of these so called 'good looking' actresses that would be down right envious of Linney's career and the roles she gets.

Before I get onto your supposed vendetta against George Clooney, may I say this first:

You say blockbuster like it's a good thing.

My point is that the blockbusters today are dominated by 'mimbo's'

To that I say: so what. I don't want Seymour Hoffman and Norton in blockbusters. Why? Because it usually will be a crap movie where they won't get a chance to perform.

An example: Norton and Hulk.

The studio wanted Norton for the Ang Lee Hulk and he said no. Which exemplifies my point that Hollywood in certain circumstances want the 'artsy' actor but that actor doesn't want the role. If Norton did Hulk maybe we as an audience wouldn't have got The 25th Hour (I don't know if they were filming at the exact same time I'm just using it as an example or hypothetical)

It's like choosing fast food over a fine meal. You won't eat the fast food unless there is nothing else around. If you can mostly always choose the fine food, most people certainly would.

Unfortunately Hollywood makes an excess of films. There's only so many good actors around/ available. That's when you start filling the roles with less talented people. If you are going to fill a role with a less talented person that isn't going to impress the audience with their performance well they better be damn pretty to impress them instead. Fortunately or unfortunately there are more pretty people in the world than talented people. And that's Hollywood for you.

And then there's your exceptions like Superman with Brando and Hackman. It's better than the average blockbuster because it doesn't want to just be a blockbuster it wants be a good film and that in turn attracts the right actors. The same with Batman Begins and now The Dark Knight. It wanted to be more than your typical Batman Returns type blockbuster movie and just be a good film, a more cerebral blockbuster and that in turn attracts the talent.

Again I could go on and on but I'm getting lost in my own thoughts as it is. Am I still coherent?

On to Clooney.

Jaws is a bad example because it's such a classic that no one wants to even think about alternate casting and if it was made today. The actors in their roles are such perfection that you can't imagine anyone else.

But to use your example, would it be so bad if Clooney was in such a movie? Do you actual have a vendetta against him?

In case you can't tell I actually like him. But now if you suggested someone like Matthew McConaughey my answer would be different (though he's actually a decent comedic actor he just makes usually terrible movies.)

Clooney actually played a similar role in the Perfect Storm, was he so bad? Ok the movie was.

I also think you are paying too much attention to the Oscars. History deems Paul Newman to be a revered actor not how many Oscars he won. I could think of a dozen examples in as many seconds of actors that have failed to have been recognised by the Academy. There's even as many examples of actors that were awarded Oscars and did not deserve it.

Does Clooney fall into the latter category? You apparently think so, I do not.

Did you see Syrianna? I thought Clooney was very good in the role. I don't think it was his best work (close) nor do I think it was the best supporting role ever to win an Oscar (that would just be silly). But in the year deemed by the Academy as 2005 it was the best supporting role. Clooney's competition was Matt Dillon for Crash, Paul Giamatti for Cinderella Man, Jake Gyllenhaal for Brokeback Mountain and William Hurt for A History of Violence.

So I propose who do you think should have won it? Sometimes the Academy Awards is all about giving the award to someone who is the best at that particular time (sometimes the nominees are filler) and sometimes the Academy gives the award for a body of work (ie Scorsese or Denzel Washington). In the case of Clooney's Oscar it could have been both.

Do I think Clooney = DeNiro? No.

You make a fair point about Harrison and Eastwood. But sometimes they can be truly astonishing in that field, ie Eastwood in Unforgiven.

It would be stupid not to say looks are important in Hollywood, it's a visual medium and looks have always been important. Hell looks are of increasing importance in the real world and even as important in the music industry as it is in Hollywood when it should be about the sound created not the image created.

Oh and on last bit of defence for Clooney he won his Oscar for best supporting actor and Newman won his for Best Actor. Also to tie everything together why did Clooney win his for his least attractive role instead of say Good Night and Good Luck or Michael Clayton? Plain talent maybe :)

Oh I'm going to get drilled for my defence of Clooney. But I'll still stand by defence of people like him and Pitt (who I don't think is Oscar calibre yet - I'll wait for Benjamin Button) and Robert Redford. Same scenario different era.

I just wanted to add that you probably realise already but I extremely dislike blockbusters and typical Hollywood. That does not mean I dislike all Hollywood film and its actors.

I generally stay away from the glut of crap and in turn usually have a enjoyable movie watching experience. As a recent example I was regretfully lured in by others to see Transformers (hey I'm a child of the 80's), I will not be seeing it's sequel.

In response to your edit:

edit: I will say that 3 great actors of this generation that do get cast in Blockbusters are Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington, so I don't want to come off as someone who hates all movies today:)

That's funny I was just talking about Hanks the other day. The topic of discussion was who hates Tom Hanks? I think it's impossible. Denzel is a no brainer, although he's getting into a familiar pattern lately. And Crowe well I used to like him when he was small time in Australia, then I hated him, now i'm starting to come back around. Although regardless public opinion is against me in regards to Crowe.

I just wanted to point that out just as public opinion is against you with Clooney. Oh I only tease.

Triple post. Sorry.

I just read over your posts again and I didn't address (which is pretty much all I should have addressed) your point about great range = great actor.

This is where things great real subjective. Does Natalie Portman have great range? Good not great, but give it time, she's like what... 28?

I don't even know if Linney even has great range. I'll have to dwell on that. She's still a fantastic actor.

I'll have to dwell on great modern actors and get back to you. Tom Hanks definitley has range that not deniable but whether its great is really subjective.

I actually don't think Pacino has great range, but it's also not deniable that he's a great actor.

To use your example:

To me, what makes a great actor is someone who is able to stretch yourself from your usual role.  DeNiro can play a psycho in Taxidriver, a young Vito Corleone in Godfather II, Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull, and even be funny as hell in Midnight Run.

I could say Brad Pitt has great range. Don't laugh yet. He's done pychotic, method and funny. Obviously not as well as De Niro but still a similar range? That does not put him in the same league as De Niro.

TheoOdo said:

Well, let's get creative here. How would you have done the relationship? Supposing you were completely redoing the prequels with no thought at all for the ones that were actually made, how would you make the relationship between Anakin and Luke's mother (doesn't even need to be called Padmé) work?

I've thought about it a little, but it's actually pretty tough. With Han, you can see why a woman'd fall for him but with Hayden you'd be more likely to call in a restraining order. I mean, Jesus, crying at the fire saying "love me dammit"? Just plain creepy and creepier that George seems to think that is romance.

Its not that tought, there is no reason Anakin has to be, or should have been a whiney, creepy, little jackass. Make him a real hero, and so many problems are solved. Padme falling in love with him would work. Audienced would no longer be yelling, "fall in the lava, fall in the lava you stupid little punk! Just fall in the lava already!" during the final battle between he and Obi-Wan. One thing that would have gone a long ways in making the prequels work, would have been for Anakin to have been a hero we could have really cared about, someone we could sympathize with.

We could do this with Luke. He was a normal person, completely average and run of the mill, living the boring life of a farm boy in a pathetic little berg, were he goofed around with his friends and dreamed of going to the Academy and becoming a real pilot, flying around in space and seeing the galaxy. Who can't relate to that? Wanting to get away and see the world? Experience adventure and excitement, but feeling trapped in a mundane world. Through a turning of events, Luke suddenly discovers he is not what he seems, he is the son of a great war hero, he leaves home and by the end of the movie he has become a hero himself. As the story continues, he continues to do heroic things and matures all the while.

The Phantom Menace followed this same sort of path, boy wants to see the world, discovers he has Jedi abilities, leaves home and becomes a bit of a hero himself by single handedly destorying the Trade Federations ships, it was a little bit of a tiny bopper, but the main idea was there.In Attack of the Clones we see our young hero has grown into an annoying teenager, the kind that that makes you want to wring their neck. Over the course of the movie, at no fault of his own, a beautiful girl falls in love with him, he says stupid things and freaks out and cries and so on, and she feels sorry for him because she broke his little teenage heart and so on. Eventually he kills a whole village of people, and she comforts him and tells him it is alright, everyone gets pissed and commits mass murder sometime, and she seems to fall in love with him even more. When facing the firing squad they declair their love for one another and choose to be together in the even they live. ROTS, whiney jerk grow into whiney annoying man, does whiney annoying things, freaks out and gets scared, kills Jedi, kills, kids, kills wife, tries to kill best friend, gets appendages cut off and sinks into pit of lava.

Who can sympathize with any of that? Maybe Charles Manson or Jeffery Domher. This guy is killing women and children, hacking them up with a laser sword, and then our seven year olds dress up as him for Halloween. Pah. 

If Anakin had been a character we could sympathize with, his fall to the dark side would have been so much more tragic, and believable. Instead Lucas followed the idea, "Well, everyone already knows he is Darth Vader". Lame excuse, a really good prequel will do its best to prentend it was made first, so people new to the series can watch them in order as if they were made that way. If we could fall in love with Anakin as we fell in love with Luke and Han and countless other movie heroes we've liked, then we would have no problem believeing Padme could fall in love with him. It was too forced. A liberal do gooder like Padme would have never fallen in love with a strange psycho killer like Anakin. Bad dialog and acting or not, it just didn't work.As for the love story specifically, why follow the cliche of the Romeo and Juliet young forbidden love theme? Why not the simple classic, boy meets girl, they get to know each other, and over a short period of time fall in love. The whole "I have always loved you, you torture me, you are in my very soul, I've loved you since I was nine years old and I must have you, I MUST HAVE YOU I MUST I MUST I MUST!!!! DAMN F-ING SAND!!!! YOU"RE SO SOFT! GIVE ME THE SOFTNESS!!! It wasn't believable, and if it had been believable, it would have been even more creepy than it already was. Seriously, did anybody watch those movies without thinking, Whoa, that Anakin guy probably needs to be on some sort of medication.

see you auntie said:

The topic of discussion was who hates Tom Hanks? I think it's impossible. Denzel is a no brainer, although he's getting into a familiar pattern lately.

Not just trying to disagree with you, but I really don't like Tom Hanks. So it is not impossible. I think when an actor becomes too big you end up "watching Tom Hank films" instead of watching a movie. Harrison Ford went this way long ago. In Star Wars it felt like you were watching Han Solo, in Indiana Jones it felt like you were watching Indiana Jones. Somewhere along the line I began feeling like I was watching Harrison Ford. My feeling is that the actor should convince us the character is real. The whole point of acting is to be a player in a story, the focus is suppose to be on the story, good actors will tell a really good story in such away that the story itself will be what we take home with us, not "Wow, Tom Hanks just blew me away in that movie, he is such an amazing actor, I forget the name of the character he played, but OMG he is such an amazing actor."

But in this day and age of star worship, the actors are who many people want to see. It is all about finding stories for the actors to play in, not about finding the actors to bring a really good story to life.

C3PX said:

Somewhere along the line I began feeling like I was watching Harrison Ford.

Actually, in "K-19 Widowmaker" I lost track that I was watching Ford.

I wasn't trying to say Harrison Ford is a bad actor, plenty of movies to prove the contrary. But Hollywood seems to have this trap of making actor's cliches of themselves. Kind of a "I have this script here and Harrison Ford would be the perfect man for the lead role." Why is that exactly? Oh right, because he has played that same character before a time or two, makes sense. Same trap that was fallen into with someof the James Bond films, let's get Roger Moore, because he played the Saint, let's get Brosnan, because he was fricken Remmington Steel! We know he can do the part. Sure some actors are good at playing certian roles, possibly because they are always choosen for those kinds of roles, but it really does turn that actor into a walking cliche. To me, this defines Tom Hanks. Look at me, I am stranded on an island! Look at me, I am stranded in an airport, look at me, I am playing opposite Meg Ryan, look at me I am playing opposite Meg Ryan, look at me I am playing opposite Meg Ryan, look at me I am... you get the point. It gives you the feeling, 'didn't I pay to see this movie a couple of years ago?' 

That is why Harrison Ford took roles like What Lies Beneath, and Windowmaker, Sabrina, to break out of the shell that had been formed around him. Look at Airforce One, 'hey, Jack Ryan is the president now" look at Firewall, 'hey, Jack Ryan ditched his old family and job and got new ones', look at Hollywood Homocide, 'uh...? ', look at Crystal Skull, 'man that guy looks bored...'

I probably drug this to a point where it is kind of unfair, but I do feel that our deep infatuation with the damn stars goes a long way in making some pretty awful turkeys, and burnt ones at that.

Very well said.